(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Award passed by the Second Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 1014 of 1981 dated 27th February 1987.
(2.) THE facts giving arise to this petition briefly, are as follows:
(3.) MR. Bukhari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse in view of the fact that the enquiry officer has relied upon the evidence of the handwriting expert vis-a-vis the Government handwriting expert in the criminal matters who has opined that the alterations are not in the handwriting of the workman. He further submitted that Mr Gajjar had not examined the copy of the original cheque with the bank and what was examined was Xerox copy of the said cheque and not the original. Mr. Bukhari submitted that the original cheque was not placed before the enquiry officer and in the circumstances the evidence of Mr. Gajjar was based on the Xerox copy of the said cheque; whereas the reliance placed by the Government handwriting expert in the criminal matter was based on the examination of the original cheque. He further submitted that in any event no connection would be there between the petitioner-workman and Mr. Bhagwanlal Shah. He further submitted that the judicial notice ought to be taken by this Court of pilferage carried out to the cheque in postal transit and to that extent the enquiry officer's finding is perverse as it is not based on sufficient evidence but it is based on the opinion of the handwriting expert Mr, gajjar. He submitted that in any event in view of the conflict of opinions between the two handwriting experts, the workman should be given the benefit of doubt particularly in view of the fact that he has served the company for about 17 years and during the said period there was no memo served upon him and further he had no blemished record. Mr. Bukhari then submitted that the chargesheet has not been signed by the competent authority inasmuch as the workman was appointed by the Chief Accountant; whereas the impugned orders of dismissal have been passed by Mr. B. B. Desai, Financial Controller of the company. He further submitted that Mr. Desai's evidence should not be accepted inasmuch as Mr. Desai was an interested party who had animosity against the workman. He further submitted that the chargesheet was vague as it did not specify dearly the charges levelled against the workman and it did not specify the standing order under which the workman was charged.